Einstein definitely did not believe you could communicate faster than light if you had two entangled particles. Einstein believed non-locality was an absurdity.
bunchberry
joined 2 years ago
Charlie
Also Bell experiments have proven the indeterminacy which you say is absurd. No theory of local hidden variables can describe quantum mechanics.
You say Bell's theorem disproves realism, but then you immediately follow it up with saying it disproved local realism. Do you see how those two are not the same statements? It never even crossed Bell's mind to deny reality. He believed that the conclusion to his own theorem is just that it is not local.
(Technically, anything explained non-locally can also be explained non-temporally instead, so it is more accurate methinks to say spatiotemporal realism is ruled out. I am not as big of a fan of thinking about it non-temporally but there are some respectable people like Avshalom Elitzur who do. Thinking about it non-locally is far more intuitive.)
Also, again, this is not about indeterminacy and determinacy, but about indefiniteness and definiteness, i.e. anti-realism vs realism. These are not the same things. To say something is indeterminate is merely to imply it is random. To say something is indefinite is to say it doesn't even have a value at all. It is also sometimes called realism because it's about object permanence. Definiteness is just object permanence, it is the idea that systems still possess observable properties even when they are not being directly observed in the moment.
He’s asking where the line is between this indeterminacy and determinacy. At what scale to things move from quantum to “real” and why?
You could in principle make this non-realism make sense if you imposed some sort of well-defined physical conditions as to when particles take on real values. Bell described this as a kind of "flash" ontology because you would not have continuous definite values but "flashes" of definite values under certain conditions. But it turns out that you cannot do this without contradicting the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
These are called physical collapse models, like GRW theory, but these transitions are non-reversible even though all evolution operators in quantum mechanics are reversible, and so in principle if you rigorously define what conditions would cause this transition, you could conduct an experiment where you set up those conditions, and then try to reverse it. Orthodox quantum theory and the physical collapse model would make different predictions at that point.
These models never end up being local, anyways.
The reason I say value indefiniteness is absurd as a way to interpret quantum mechanics is because it is not necessitated by the mathematics at all, and if you believe it:
- It devolves into solipsism if you do not rigorously define a mathematical criterion as to when definite values arise, because then nothing has real values outside of you directly looking at it.
- If you do rigorously define a criterion, then it is no longer quantum mechanics but an alternative theoretical model.
So, either it devolves into solipsism, or it is a different theory to begin with.
Bell was fine with #2 as long as people were honest about that being what they were doing. He wrote an article "Against 'Measurement'" where he criticized the vagueness of people who claim there is a transition "at measurement" but then do not even rigorously define what qualifies as a "measurement." He wrote positively of GRW theory in his paper "Are there Quantum Jumps?" precisely because they do give a rigorous mathematical definition of how this process takes place.
But Bell also didn't particularly believe there was any reason to believe in value indefiniteness to begin with. You can just interpret quantum mechanics as a kind of stochastic mechanics, just one with non-local features, where it is random but particles still have definite values at all times. The same year he published his famous theorem in 1964 in the paper "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he also published the paper "On the Problem of Hidden Variables" debunking von Neumann's proof that supposedly you cannot interpret quantum mechanics in value definite terms. He also wrote a paper "Beables in Quantum Field Theory" where he shows QFT can be represented as a stochastic theory. He also wrote a paper "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where he promoted pilot wave theory, not necessarily because he believed it, but because he saw it as a counterexample to all the supposed "proofs" that quantum mechanics cannot be interpreted as a value definite theory.
My point isn't about randomness/indeterminacy. It is about "indefiniteness," the claim that things have no values until you look. This either devolves into solipsism, or into a theory which is not quantum mechanics. It is far simpler to just say the systems have values when you're not looking, you just don't know what they are, because the random evolution of the system prevents you from tracking them. It is sort of like, if I hit a fork in the road and take either the left or right path, and you don't know which, you wouldn't then conclude I didn't take a path at all until you look. You would conclude that you just don't know what it is, and maybe assign probabilities to them. The fact that the probability distribution doesn't contain a definite value does not demonstrate that the real world doesn't contain a definite value, and believing it doesn't unnecessarily over-complicates things. And definite ≠ deterministic. Maybe the path taken is truly random, but there is a path taken.
Not to be the 🤓 but just so we’re clear, the point of Schrödinger’s cat was to illustrate that you can’t know a quantum state until you measure it. Basically just saying “probability exists.”
That wasn't Schrödinger’s point at all.
Schrödinger was responding to people in Bohr and von Neumann's camp who claim that particles described mathematically by a superposition of states literally have no real observables in the real world at all. It is not just that they are random or probabilistic, but people in the "anti-realist" camp argue that they effectively no longer even exist anymore when they are described mathematically by a superposition of states. This position is sometimes called value indefiniteness.
Schrödinger was criticizing this position by pointing out that you cannot separate your beliefs about the microworld from the macroworld, because macroscopic objects like cats are also made up of particles and should follow the same rules. Hence, he puts forward a thought experiment whereby a cat would also be described mathematically in a superposition of states.
If you think superposition of states means it no longer has real definite properties in the real world, then the cat wouldn't have real define properties in the real world until you open the box. Schrödinger's point was that this is such an obvious absurdity that we should reject value indefiniteness for individual particles as well.
You say:
The reason it’s a big deal is that this probability is a real property. One that is supposed to be only one of two states. But instead it isn’t really in a state at all until you measure it, and that’s weird.
But that is exactly the point Schrödinger was criticizing, not supporting.
Value indefiniteness / anti-realism ultimately amounts to solipsism because if particles lack real, definite, observable properties in the real world when you are not looking at them, other people are also made up of particles, so other people wouldn't have real, definite, observable properties in the real world when you are not looking at them.
He was trying to illustrate that this position reduces to an absurdity and so we should not believe in that position.
The point is that instead of assuming it is in one state or the other, you can and often should think of both possibilities at once. This is what makes quantum computing useful.
If you perform a polar decomposition on the quantum state, you are left with a probability vector and a phase vector. The probability vector is the same kind of probability vector you use in classical probabilistic computing. The update rule for it in quantum computing literally only differs by an additional term which is a non-linear term that depends upon the phase vector.
The "advantage' comes from the phase vector. For N qubits, there are 2^N phases. A system of 300 qubits would have 2^300 phases, which is far greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe. A single logic gate thus can manipulate far more states of the system at once because it can manipulate these phases, which the stochastic dynamics of the bits have a dependence upon the phases, and thus you can not only manipulate the phases to do calculations but, if you are clever, you can write the algorithm in such a way that the effect it has on the probability distribution allows you to read off the results from the probability distribution.
The phase vector does not contain anything probabilistic, so it contains nothing that looks like the qubit being in two places at once. That is contained in the probability vector, but there is no good reason to interpret a probability distribution as the system being in two places at once in quantum mechanics than there is in classical mechanics. The advantage comes from the phases, and the state of the phases just can influence the stochastic perturbations of the bits, and thus can influence the probability distribution.
So you simply apply operations that increase or decrease the chances of certain outcomes and repeat until the answer you want has an incredibly high probability and the rest are nearly zero. Then you measure your qubit, collapsing the wave function, with a high probability that collapse will give you the answer you wanted.
Again, perform a polar decomposition on the quantum state, break it apart into the probability vector and a phase vector. Then, apply a Bayesian knowledge update using Bayes' theorem to the probability vector, exactly the way you'd do it in classical probabilistic computing. Then, simply undo the polar decomposition, i.e. recompose it back into a single complex-valued vector in Cartesian form.
What you find is that this is mathematically equivalent to the collapse of the wavefunction. The so-called "collapse of the wavefunction" is literally just a Bayesian knowledge update on the degree of freedom of the quantum state associated with the probability distribution of the bits.
It’s less like “the cat is both alive and dead” and more that “the terms ‘alive’ and ‘dead’ do not apply to the cat till you open the box”
Sure, but that position reduces to solipsism, because then you don't exist with a definite value until I look at you, either. But clearly you are thinking definite thoughts when I'm not looking, right?
They do have values. Their position is just a superposition, rather than one descrete one, which can be described as a wave. Their value is effectively a wave until it’s needed to be discrete.
To quote Dmitry Blokhintsev: "This is essentially a trivial feature known to any experimentalist, and it needs to be mentioned only because it is stated in many textbooks on quantum mechanics that the wave function is a characteristic of the state of a single particle. If this were so, it would be of interest to perform such a measurement on a single particle (say an electron) which would allow us to determine its own individual wave function. No such measurement is possible."
When I say "real values" I do not mean pure abstract mathematics. We do not live in a Platonic realm. The mathematics are just a tool for predicting what we observe in the real world. Don't confuse the map for the territory. The abstract wave has no observable properties, it is pure mathematics. If the whole world was just one giant wave in Hilbert space, then this would be equivalent to claiming that the entire world is just one big mathematical function without any observable properties at all, which obviously makes no sense as we can clearly observe the world.
To quote Rovelli: "The gigantic, universal ψ wave that contains all the possible worlds is like Hegel’s dark night in which all cows are black: it does not account, per se, for the phenomenological reality that we actually observe. In order to describe the phenomena that we observe, other mathematical elements are needed besides ψ: the individual variables, like X and P, that we use to describe the world."
Again, as I said in my first comment, any mathematical theory that describes the world needs to, at some point, include symbols which directly refer to something we can observe. An abstract mathematical function contains no such symbols. If you really believe that particles transform into purely mathematical waves, then you need some process to transform them back, or else you cannot explain what we observe at all, and so far the only process you have put forward is "it happens at every interaction" which is just objectively and empirically wrong because then entanglement would be impossible.
This is why you run into contradictions like the "Wigner's friend" paradox where Wigner would describe his friend in a superposition of states, and if you believe that this literally means that all that exists inside the room is an abstract function, then you cannot explain how the observer in the room can perceive anything that they later claim they do, because there would be no observables inside of the room.
You cannot get around criticisms of solipsism by just promoting purely abstract mathematical entities to being "objective reality" as if objects transform into purely Platonic mathematical functions. At least, if you are going to claim this, then you need some rigorous process to transform them back into something that is described with mathematical language where some of the symbols refer to something we can actually observe such that we can then explain how it is that we can observe it to have the properties that it does when we look at it.
Sure. That doesn’t make the general understanding of the thought experiment accurate. Once the decay of the atom that triggers the poison is detected, it’s no longer in a superposition. It has to not be in order for the detection to occur.
Please scroll up and read my actual comment. You seem to have skipped all the important technical bits, because you are claiming something which is mathematically incompatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. Your personal self-theory you are inventing here literally would render entanglement impossible.
The double slit experiment shows that an interaction can change the result from wave-like to particle-like behavior.
Decoherence is not relevant here. Decoherence theory works like this:
- Assume that the system+environment become entangled.
- Assume that the observer loses track of the environment.
- Trace out the the environment.
- This leaves you with a reduced density matrix for the system where the coherence terms have dropped to 0.
Notice that step #2 is entirely subjective. We are just assuming that the observer has lost track of the environment in terms of their subjective epistemic access, and step #3 is then akin to statistically marginalizing over the environment in order to then remove it from consideration.
This isn't an actual physical transition but an epistemic one. The system+environment are still in a coherent superposition of states, and decoherence theory merely shows that it looks like it has decohered if you only have subjective knowledge on a small portion of the much larger coherent superposition of states.
If you believe that a superposition of states means it has no observable properties and is just purely a mathematical function, then decoherence does not solve your problem at all, because it is ultimately a subjective process and not a physical process. If you spent time studying the environment enough before running the experiment such that you could include the environment in your model then decoherence would not occur.
I’m literally not. My entire point is that it isn’t a solipsism. Any interaction causes the waveform to collapse.
Which, again, renders entanglement impossible, since objects must interact to become entangled.
If we accepted your personal self-theory, then quantum computers should be impossible, because the qubits all need to interact many many times over as the algorithm progresses for them to all become entangled and to create a superposition of states of the whole computer's memory.
You are not listening and advocating things that are trivially wrong.
yet you give no explanation of an alternative. Something is happening. How do you explain it?
I just don't deny value definiteness. That's it. There is nothing beyond this.
Consider a perfectly classical world but this world is still fundamentally random. The randomness of interactions would disallow us from tracking the definite values of particles at a given moment in time, so we could only track them with an evolving probability distribution. We can represent this probability distribution with a vector and represent interactions with stochastic matrices. Given that the model does not include observable definite values, would it then be rational to claim that particles suddenly transform into an infinite-dimensional vector in configuration space when you're not looking at them and lose all their observable properties? No, of course not. The particles still have real observable properties in the real world, but you just lose track of them in the model due to their random evolution.
You could create a simulation where you assign definite values and permute them stochastically at each interaction, and this would produce the same statistical results if you make a measurement at any given step. It is the same with quantum mechanics. It is just a form of non-classical statistical mechanics. There is no empirical, mathematical, or philosophical reason to deny that particles stop possessing real values when you are not looking at them. It is not hard to put together a simulation where the qubits are assigned definite bit values at all times and each logic gate just stochastically permutes those bit values. I even created one myself here. John Bell also showed you can do this with quantum field theory in his paper "Beables for Quantum Field Theory."
I used to burn Linux ISOs all the time to CDs since they are useful to setup my servers. But annoyingly the new version of Debian, even the specifically labeled "CD" net installer ISO, doesn't fit on a CD anymore, so last time I had to do it on a DVD and wasn't that long ago.
Value indefiniteness is just solipsism. If particles do not have values when you are not looking, then any object made of particles also do not have values when you are not looking. This was the point of Schrodinger's "cat" thought experiment. Your beliefs about the microworld inherently have implications for the macroworld. If particles don't exist when you're not looking at them, then neither do cats, or other people. This view of "value indefiniteness" you are trying to defend is indefensible because it is literally solipsism and any attempt to promote it above solipsism will just become incoherent.
You say:
it’s when position is needed to be known that causes it. Until then, the position is in a superstate of all possible positions, but for an interaction to occur it needs to be in one position.
This is trivially false, because then it would not be possible for two particles to become entangled on the position basis, which requires them to interact in such a way that depends upon their position values. The other particle would thus need to "know" its position value to become entangled with it, and if this leads to a "collapse," then such entanglement could not occur. Yet we know it can occur in experiments.
If by "know" you mean humans knowing and not other particles, yeah, okay, but that's obviously solipsism.
Any attempt to defend value indefiniteness will always either amount to:
- Solipsism
- Something that is trivially wrong
- A theory which is not quantum mechanics (makes different predictions)
This (at least your wording) implies that physics cares about our mathematical models. It doesn’t. Quantum mechanics and “classical” physics are just ways we organize things for education.
I don't blame them, it is literally the textbook Dirac-von Neumann axioms. That is how it is taught in schools, even though it is obviously incoherent. You are taught that there is a "Heisenberg cut" between the quantum and classical world, with no explanation of how this occurs.
Though we don’t have a model for it, the unvirse is not using two separate models of physics. There is no “quantum mechanics” and “classical physics”. There is only physics.
The problem is that the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics does not even allow you to derive classical physics minus gravity in a limiting case from quantum mechanics. It is not even a physical theory of nature at all.
We know from the macroscopic world that particles have real observable properties, yet value indefiniteness denies that they have real observable properties, and it provides no method of telling you when those real, observable properties are added back to the world. It thus cannot make a single empirical prediction at all without this sleight-of-hand where they just say, as a matter of axiom in the Dirac-von Neumann textbook axioms of quantum mechanics that it happens "at measurement."
If measurement is taken to be a subjective observation, then it is just solipsism. If measurement is taken to be a physical process, then it cannot reproduce the mathematical predictions of quantum mechanics, because this "Heisenberg cut" would be a non-reversible process, yet all unitary evolution operators are reversible. Hence, any model which includes a rigorous definition of "measurement" (like Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory) would include an additional non-reversible process. You could then just imagine setting up an experiment where this process would occur and then try to reverse it. The mathematics of quantum mechanics and your theory would inevitably lead to different predictions in such a process.
Therefore, again, if you believe in value indefiniteness, then you either (1) are a solipsist, (2) don't believe in quantum mechanics but think it will be replaced by a physical collapse model, or (3) are confused.
The only way for quantum mechanics to be self-consistent is to reject value indefiniteness, at least as a metaphysical point of view. This does not require actually modifying the mathematics. If nature is random, then of course the definite values will evolve statistically such that they could not be tracked and included in the model. All you would need to then demonstrate is that quantum statistics converges to classical statistics in a limiting case on macroscopic scales, which is achieved by the theory of decoherence.
But the theory of decoherence achieves nothing if you believe in value indefiniteness, because if you believe quantum mechanics has nothing to do with statistics at all, then there is no reason to conclude that what you get in the reduced density matrices after you trace out the environment has anything to do with classical statistics, either.
There is no good argument in the academic literature for value indefiniteness. It is an incoherent worldview based on no empirical evidence at all. People who believe it often just regurgitate mindlessly statements like "Bell's theorem proves it!" yet cannot articulate what Bell's theorem even is or how on earth is proves that, especially since Bell himself was the biggest critic of value indefiniteness yet wrote the damned theorem!
I think you’re conflating mathematical and philosophical realness and then Principle of Explosion-ing your way into hating on physicsts.
Waa waa boo hoo. You can cry about me criticizing crackpot quantum mysticism by saying "stop hatin' bro 😢😢😢😢" but that doesn't magically make your crackpot mysticism justifiable. You have the right to have incoherent mystical beliefs, but I also have the right to criticize them. If you don't want to be criticized then don't post them on a public forum.
I think you’re conflating mathematical and philosophical realness and then Principle of Explosion-ing your way into hating on physicsts. Quantum indefinite interpretations still result in the same mathematical predictions about observations
Did you read what I wrote at all? This is a criticism about the crackpot anti-realist claims. Yes, you can argue that objective reality doesn't exist, that all that exists is what you are directly observing in the direct moment of the observation and nothing exists outside of your direct gaze, and that you have a mathematical model for predicting what will show up in your direct gaze, and that this model makes the right predictions.
If that is just your own personal belief, I'd think you're crazy, but whatever. If, however, you start lying and claiming that this is somehow implied by the linear algebra, that quantum mechanics somehow "proves" your solipsistic crackpottery, then I am going to call you out on being a crackpot quantum mystic. If you don't want to be criticized then don't spread your quantum mysticism on a public forum.
so all your talk about MW saying your memory is a lie is just obvious bullshit.
Because you don't understand the mathematics so you don't understand what I am talking about. You have a Laymen's interpretation of MW you got from YouTube videos that paints it as just saying that different classical worlds occur in different parallel branches of a multiverse. In your mind, you think what MW is claiming is that if a photon has a 50%/50% chance of being reflected/transmitted at a beam splitter, then the world splits into two classical branches where in one the observer measures the photon having been reflected and in the other they measure the photon having been transmitted.
You think what I am saying is absurd because you get all your info from YouTube videos and don't even understand what is seriously being advocated by these crackpots as you don't actually read the academic literature on the subject. No, what they are claiming is indeed far more absurd, which is that the photon does neither of those things, it takes no real trajectories at all in 3D space in any sense, it doesn't even exist as a distinct object in the world.
"Thus in our interpretation of the Everett theory there is no association of the particular present with any particular past. And the essential claim is that this does not matter at all. For we have no access to the past. We have only our ‘memories’ and ‘records’. But these memories and records are in fact present phenomena. The instantaneous configuration of the xs can include clusters which are markings in notebooks, or in computer memories, or in human memories. These memories can be of the initial conditions in experiments, among other things, and of the results of those experiments. The theory should account for the present correlations between these present phenomena. And in this respect we have seen it to agree with ordinary quantum mechanics, in so far as the latter is unambiguous." ... "Everett's replacement of the past by memories is a radical solipsism—extending to the temporal dimension the replacement of everything outside my head by my impressions, of ordinary solipsism or positivism. Solipsism cannot be refuted. But if such a theory were taken seriously it would hardly be possible to take anything else seriously. So much for the social implications. It is always interesting to find that solipsists and positivists, when they have children, have life insurance."
John Bell, "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists"
MW is even more crackpot nonsense than typical anti-realist claims, because at least the solipsist believes in what they can observe in the moment. You simply cannot derive what is empirically observed from MW because it has no connection at all to the real world, and so it only reflects one's ignorance on this subject to claim that MW actually has a formula for making empirical predictions. They simply do not.
MW is anti-realist not just in the properties you are not observing, but even in the properties you observe, and just claims reality is literally a mathematical function, like a Platonic realm but rather than all mathematics it is just one function ψ(x,t). We obviously cannot observe pure mathematical functions. You need something in the mathematical model, some mathematical symbol, that refers to something that we can empirically observe, usually called an observable, yet there are no observables in MW so there is no possibility of actually making an empirical prediction with it.
"The gigantic, universal ψ wave that contains all the possible worlds is like Hegel’s dark night in which all cows are black: it does not account, per se, for the phenomenological reality that we actually observe. In order to describe the phenomena that we observe, other mathematical elements are needed besides ψ: the individual variables, like X and P, that we use to describe the world. The Many Worlds interpretation does not explain them clearly. It is not enough to know the ψ wave and Schrödinger’s equation in order to define and use quantum theory: we need to specify an algebra of observables, otherwise we cannot calculate anything and there is no relation with the phenomena of our experience. The role of this algebra of observables, which is extremely clear in other interpretations, is not at all clear in the Many Worlds interpretation."
— Carlo Rovelli, “Helgoland”
Even the crackpot solipsist's views are more coherent than the views of the crackpot Many Worlder's views.
Tim Maudlin has a good lecture on this fact I will link below. I'd also recommend his paper "Can the World be Only Wavefunction?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7gbWWPUsA
Again, my criticism is not solely that these views are obviously crackpot mystical nonsense (they are). The problem with quantum mystics is not just that they are mystics, but that they pretend quantum mechanics bolsters their mystical claims. Nothing in the linear algebra of the model comes close to having the hint of an air of implying these things. If you want to believe that personally, go ahead, but stop pretending these crank views are in any way backed by physics.
The rampant spread of quantum mysticism in academic circles is a problem because these physicists who buy into it don't always keep to themselves, many go to the media and start trying to deceive the public that solipsism is somehow proved by physics. Some even manage to get peer-reviewed papers published in academic journals claiming objective reality doesn't exist, which then crackpot idealists like Bernardo Kastrup latch onto to "prove" we all live in a grand "cosmic consciousness" because they have an academic paper and real physicists backing their views.
When even the physics departments are becoming overrun with crackpot mystics then we have a serious problem because the public trusts these people. I hold them to a higher standard than I would hold a random charlatan like Deepak Chopra which I don't expect to tell the truth anyways. It bothers me much more when I see physicists like Chris Ferrie publishing Medium articles where he claims quantum mechanics "denies reality" or Mithuna Yoganathan deliberately lying about the mathematics with claims repeatedly debunked in the academic literature to push the nonsense that the mathematics proves there is a multiverse "if you just take it seriously" than I do some random Twitter user saying some quantum mystical nonsense. These people exploit their credentials to push their own mystical mumbo jumbo views.
You should generally dismiss what physicists in academia say about metaphysics, because crackpot quantum mysticism is rampantly popular and so you rarely get anything coherent from them.
I would recommend you check out my article here. Most academics in the physics departments believe in a property called "value indefiniteness" which amounts to crackpot solipsism based on poorly reasoned arguments that obviously cannot possibly be correct because Louis de Broglie presented a counterexample decades before these crackpot arguments were even made.
This is a strange phenomenon that the physicist John Bell points out in his paper "On the Impossible Pilot Wave." The "pilot wave" theory is a model which is mathematically equivalent to standard quantum mechanics yet is value definite, and was first presented by de Broglie in the Solvay conference in 1927. Yet, despite this, academics from John von Neumann to Richard Feynman would go on to publish "impossibility theorems" trying to prove value definiteness is impossible, even though they all had a counterexample sitting in their lap.
Bell would then go on to publish several papers showing where the flaws in all their arguments are, but it had no impact on academia, and solipsism remains the overwhelmingly dominant position. Indeed "value indefiniteness" really is just a renaming of solipsism to make it sound less ridiculous. It literally means that particles have no values when you're not looking at them, and since macroscopic objects, even other human beings, are made up of particles, it naturally applies to them as well: value indefiniteness = other people don't exist if you're not looking at them.
Many Worlds arose from this same crackpot delusion of physicists who recognize that solipsism is kinda silly but don't want to give up value indefiniteness... which is literally solipsism. So they try to find a middle ground between solipsism and solipsism and their views just end up becoming coherent.
Bell points out in his paper "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists" that Many Worlds is still basically just solipsism but with a lot of extra baggage to confuse people to what they are even arguing so it is not so obvious that it is. A lot of Laymen falsely think Many Worlds is just the claim that there are many classical worlds. If I go to measure a photon in a superposition of both possible paths, then they think it means there will be a classical world where I perceive it on one path and another classical world where I perceive it on another path.
No, Many Worlds is even more incoherent, because no one perceives anything on any path at all. There are simply no objects which travel through 3D space within the interpretation. Consider that you walk from your living room to your bedroom, and you remember clearly that you did that. Since Many Worlds is still value indefinite, there does not exist any definite trajectories in 3D space, and so your memory has to be a complete lie. That didn't happen. Indeed, no matter how strongly you feel that there is a computer/phone screen in front of you right now, in Many Worlds, that also must be a lie, because no objects exist in 3D space so there cannot be an object with a definite value in front of you right now.
This is what Bell saw as so absurd about it. Everything we perceive and believe we have perceived has to be largely disconnected from the real world, almost as if we're living in a fake simulation, a brain in a vat, that is entirely disconnected from what is "actually going on." Many Worlds is more batshit idiotic than you are led to believe from YouTube videos. It does not follow from the science at all, but follows from the crackpot quantum mysticism of "value indefiniteness," which has no basis in the mathematics at all. Even many of the believers in academia admit that no one knows how to actually derive what we actually perceive from the interpretation.
Indeed, to some extent, it has always been both necessary and proper for man, in his thinking, to divide things up, and to separate them, so as to reduce his problems to manageable proportions; for evidently, if in our practical technical work we tried to deal with the whole of reality all at once, we would be swamped…However, when this mode of thought is applied more broadly…then man ceases to regard the resulting divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and experience himself and his world as actually constituted of separately existent fragments…fragmentation is continually being brought about by the almost universal habit of taking the content of our thought for ‘a description of the world as it is’. Or we could say that, in this habit, our thought is regarded as in direct correspondence with objective reality. Since our thought is pervaded with differences and distinctions, it follows that such a habit leads us to look on these as real divisions, so that the world is then seen and experienced as actually broken up into fragments.
— David Bohm, “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”
Fields aren't observable. If I sprinkle some magnetic filings around a magnetic field, I will see the filings move, and even conform to the force lines of the field. But, at the end of the day, what I am seeing is the behavior of the particles, not the field. If all that exists are fields, then reality wouldn't be observable, which clearly contradicts with what we observe.
Of course, you say that there "observable points" added to the field, but I don't see how this is different form just saying that there are particles in the field, since that's basically all a particle is, an observable point. Quite literally. Particles are understood as dimensionless points which are defined in terms of their observables.
view more: next ›
Nope. Quantum mechanics is just a statistical theory. Anything beyond that is a delusion from crackpot quantum mystics, which sadly even your views are popular among academics, because quantum woo permeates both the non-academic and academic circles alike.